Twitter
Advertisement

Coal scam: Only SC will hear pleas against spl court orders

Supreme Court today said pleas challenging any interim order passed by a special court during the pendency of trial will be entertained only by it.

Latest News
article-main
Supreme Court
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

Underlining that the coal block allocation scam cases were not ordinary cases but fell under a special category which requires special attention given the magnitude of illegalities allegedly committed, including some with criminal intent, the Supreme Court today said pleas challenging any interim order passed by a special court during the pendency of trial will be entertained only by it.

In doing so, the court refused to re-visit the July 25, 2014 order passed by it, making it mandatory that any prayer for stay or impeding the progress in the investigation or trial could be made only before the apex court and no other court.

The three-judge bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said that these cases pertained to “large scale corruption”.  

The bench noted that this had affected the allocation of coal blocks and hence needed to be treated in a manner different from the usual cases dealt by the courts.

“The magnitude of the illegalities is such that it appears that even the integrity of the (then) Director of the CBI (Ranjit Sinha) was prima facie compromised, and this court had to intervene and direct investigations into the conduct of the director of the CBI,” the bench, also comprising justices Kurian Joseph and A K Sikri, said.

Industrialist and Congress leader Naveen Jindal and others had approached the court, asserting that due to the July 25 order, their statutory right has been restricted.

Today, the bench observed that its order, barring the Delhi High Court from entertaining challenge to special court’s interim orders, was “not violative” of the Constitution.

“The order passed by this court does not amount to legislating in the classical mould but according special treatment to a class of cases for good and clear reason and in larger public interest as well as in the interest of the accused,” it noted.

It also observed that while it is obliged to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, it was equally true that while doing so, public interest cannot be “flung out of the window”.

“Very often, public interest is lost sight of while dealing with an accused person and the rights of an accused person are given far greater importance than societal interests and more often than not greater importance than the rights of individual victims,” it said.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement